SC-105, Item No. 3Heather Peters v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 11S02156January 24, 20122
Peters v. AHM
-- 01-24-12 Attachment to Form SC-105, Item No. 3Case No. 11S02156 - Honda’s Response to Issues Raised in 01-09-12 Order
Furthermore, while Ms. Peters now claims to reject the proposed San Diego settlement,only two years ago she was willing to participate in a proposed settlement that provided less inbenefits to class members than the current settlement. Ms. Peters’ mileage claims wereencompassed by the proposed settlement of
True v. American Honda Motor Co.,
No. EDCV 07–0287–VAP (OPx) (C.D. Cal.);
749 F.Supp.2d 1052 (C.D. Cal. 2010). Peters was aware of her mileage issues long before that action was filed on March 9, 2007, and still longer before the
court entered its preliminary approval of a proposed settlement and certification of asettlement class on August 27, 2009.
at 1058. There is no evidence, however, that Peterseither objected to or intended to opt out of that settlement, even though the terms of thatsettlement were less favorable than those now under consideration in San Diego.
. at 1061;
at 1060 (noting that class members had an opportunity to opt out). If Ms. Peters truly had alegitimate separate claim, she should have opted out in 2010 rather than waiting yet another yearuntil the carpool lane privileges for her hybrid vehicle expired.
www.arb.ca.gov/carpool.htm.Ms. Peters’ long delay in making her individual claims, however, has prejudiced AHM’sability to defend against her stale claims. She did not bring her vehicle in to address her currentcomplaints during its 3-year warranty period when she claims to have had poor mileage. Andshe did not give AHM (rather than Honda dealers who are separate entities independent of AHM) a chance to inspect her vehicle to determine whether there was a problem with it and whatexactly the problem might be. Her action should be dismissed on that basis.
Ms. Peters Has Abandoned Her CLRA Claim
Ms. Peters indicated in her January 11, 2012 submission that she is no longer making aclaim under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”).
Peters’ Jan. 11, 2012Request for Court Order and Answer, first attachment page. Accordingly, Ms. Peters is limitedto the narrower remedies available under her remaining claims.
AHM Is Not Liable For Its StatementsRepeating EPA Mileage Estimates
All of Ms. Peters’ claims require her to prove amisrepresentation, but she has not proved any deception here. Ms. Peters cannot base any claimsfor liability on the supposedly deceptive or inaccurate nature of AHM’s representations that the2006 Civic Hybrid would get “up to” the mileage per gallon (mpg) in the EPA estimates.
SeePaduano v. American Honda Motor Co.
(2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1453.Her “warranty claims fail” outright.
at 1467. “[I]t is clear that the EPA mileageestimate does not constitute a warranty.”
(citing 49 U.S.C. § 32908(d)). “[T]o the extent thatHonda identified the EPA fuel economy estimates in the Monroney sticker and reiterated thoseEPA mileage estimates in its own advertising, Honda’s provision of those estimates does notconstitute an independent warranty that [Peters]’s vehicle would achieve the EPA fuel economyestimates or a similar level of fuel economy.”
Moreover, “[a]s a matter of law, there is nothing false or misleading about Honda'sadvertising with regard to its statements that identify the EPA fuel economy estimates for thetwo Civic Hybrid models.”
at 1470. It is true that a 2-1 majority of the
court heldthat there were triable issues of fact as to whether certain statements in the vehicle advertising